Yes, so the argument she (via her lawyers) seems to be using is that she was expressing an opinion, and that opinions cannot be characterized as lies (can't be true or false). Part of that defence is that her opinions were widely mocked, were therefore not believable, therefore must be seen only as opinion, therefore can't be characterized as a lie.LuckyR wrote:Well to be clear, the suckers I referenced are any jurors in the Dominion case who believe this current argument. No doubt the original claim of fraud was factually a blatant lie, but using the term "lie" implies it could be (and actually was) believable by someone.
It's a fascinatingly balmy defence relying on, among other things, there being a difference between a statement being an opinion or a factual claim even if the words of the statement are the same in both cases. And it relies on the proposition: "I was laughed at therefore I'm innocent."Sidney Powell's lawyers wrote:It was clear to reasonable persons that she was sharing her opinions and legal theories on a matter of utmost public concern. Those members of the public who were interested in the controversy were free to, and did, review that evidence and reached their own conclusions, or awaited resolution of the matter by the courts before making up their minds. Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump. Indeed, Plaintiffs themselves characterise the statements at issue as 'wild accusations' and 'outlandish claims.' They are repeatedly labelled 'inherently improbable’ and even 'impossible.' Such characterisations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support Defendants' position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.